Opinion
No. 2-205 / 01-1073
Filed June 19, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, STEPHEN C. GERARD II, District Associate Judge.
The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for second-offense operating while intoxicated. AFFIRMED.
Brian L. Earley of Early Law Office, Montezuma, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen C. Odell, Assistant Attorney General, J. Patrick White, County Attorney, and M. Victoria Dominguez, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Nathan Foubert appeals his conviction and sentence for second-offense operating while intoxicated in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2001). Specifically, he challenges the ruling denying his motion to suppress. A challenge to a ruling on a motion to suppress implicates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. We review constitutional issues de novo. State v. Otto, 566 N.W.2d 509, 510 (Iowa 1997).
On August 19, 2000, Nathan was observed at 12:30 a.m. driving on Highway 6 in Coralville, Iowa. A police officer followed Nathan for nine blocks, or about three quarters of a mile. The officer described the motion of the car: "It would swerve towards the shoulder of the road, and then it traveled a small distance, then it would swerve back towards the center of the lane." This continued for the nine blocks. The officer stopped Nathan, leading to his conviction.
Nathan contends the stop was unwarranted and the record lacked facts to support the court's findings. Nathan relies on State v. Otto 566 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 1997), for his argument that weaving inside ones own lane cannot provide sufficient cause for an investigative stop. We read Otto more broadly. It holds that weaving, along with other facts and circumstance, may warrant such a stop. Otto, 566 N.W.2d at 511. The police officer was experienced and trained in detecting driving infractions, Nathan was on the road driving erratically in the early morning, and he was observed driving erratically for an extended period. These facts combine to provide justification for the stop.
In light of our objective finding that sufficient facts exist to justify the stop, the trial court's conclusions regarding what the officer believed are irrelevant. See State v. Heminover, 619 N.W.2d 353, 361 (Iowa 2000).
We conclude the district court correctly denied Nathan's motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.